1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT

DATED THIS THE 8 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

WRIT PETITION Nos.11504-11505/2014 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI CHANNAPPA S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/A SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-562130 REP. BY SPA HOLDER SRI JAYARAMAIAH S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

2. SRI JAYARAMAIAH S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS THE DEFENDANT R/A SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-562130 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M SUBRAMANI, ADV.)

AND:

1. SRI S C CHANDRAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NO.83, 3 RD CROSS SHARADHANAGAR YELAHANKA NEW TOWN GK VK POST BANGALORE-650056 2

2. SRI NAGARAJA S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

3. SRI RANGASHAMAIAH S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/A SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

4. SRI S C PADAMAIAH S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.6084 SUBHASHANAGAR SOMJIRAO LAYOUT NELAMANGALA, BANALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562111

5. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O H M SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A HULIKAL VILLAGE KUDURA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMNAGAR DISTRICT-562120

6. SMT. PRAMEELA W/O VEERARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A NO.5063 BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA VIJAYANAGAR NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-562111 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SRIKANTH N V., ADV. FOR R1 R2 TO 6 ARE SERVED)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF , WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2 ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL AT 3

BANGALORE IN R.A.NO.238/2013 DTD.5.12.2013 AS PER ANNEX-E.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 05.12.2013 passed in RA No.238/2013 as at Annexure-E to the petitions.

2. The petitioners were the defendants in

O.S.No.48/2010. On disposal of the said suit, claiming to the aggrieved by the judgment and decree therein, the petitioners have preferred an appeal in RA

No.238/2013. Prior to issue of notice, the registry has raised an objection with regard to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. When it was placed before the learned Judge for consideration, the order dated 05.12.2013 impugned herein is passed. Though the appeal has been kept pending, the observation is to the effect that there is certain confusion with regard to the manner in which the valuation of the property has been made and if in that light, the valuation is considered, the Lower Appellate Court would not have 4

jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. To understand this aspect better, the valuation slip as filed by the plaintiff would indicate that the value of the property is

Rs.5,20,000/-. However, the share of the plaintiffs is valued at Rs.50,00,000/-. The suit has thereafter been valued under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and the Court fee has been paid. The issue for consideration is with regard to the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction.

3. The Lower Appellate Court has expressed its opinion that the appeal would not be maintainable only due to the fact that the plaintiffs‘ share has been valued at Rs.50,00,000/-. In that view, learned counsel for the appellants has been directed to secure clarification from the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner expressed difficulty that such clarification cannot be obtained due to the fact that on disposal of the suit, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would no more be holding the brief on behalf of the plaintiffs.

5

4. In the above background, I am of the opinion that the observation as made by the Lower Appellate

Court would not be justified in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Even if the valuation slip filed in the suit is taken into consideration, the valuation of the property has been indicated at

Rs.5,20,000/-. If that be the position, the share of the plaintiffs cannot be valued at Rs.50,00,000/- which in fact has been inferred by the Lower Appellate Court as an error, but has not been acted upon in an appropriate manner. Even otherwise, what is necessary to be noticed is that the instant appeal is filed against the judgment and decree which had been passed by the

Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.) and if the present assumption is made that the valuation was much more, the suit itself would not have been maintainable before the Original

Court.

5. Therefore, in the present circumstance, when it is prima facie clear that the value of the property was indicated at Rs.5,20,000/-, the Lower

Appellate Court ought to have entertained the appeal. 6

On appearance of the respondents, if any other contention had been raised by them, the said question would have thereafter arisen for consideration and even otherwise, if any clarification was required, the same could have been obtained at that juncture.

6. Hence, for the present, the order impugned herein dated 05.12.2013 passed by the Lower Appellate

Court is set aside. The Lower Appellate Court is directed to register the appeal and consider the same in accordance with law subject to the observations made above.

In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

akc/bms